A Ruby Ridge-style standoff is brewing in Nevada, where dozens of armed federal agents are closing in on cattle rancher Cliven Bundy over claims that Bundy has allowed his cows to graze illegally on government land, endangering a protected species of tortoise.

So........tell me. How is the cows grazing hurting the tortoise? *This* very well could be my breaking point. SWAT has no business there. Why can't they work it out, face to face without all the show of force?

Last edited by Mels thinkingitover; 04-12-2014 at 02:00 PM..
Reason: title addition

The Following 30 Users Say Thank You to MonsterMash For This Useful Post:

So........tell me. How is the cows grazing hurting the tortoise? *This* very well could be my breaking point. SWAT has no business there. Why can't they work it out, face to face without all the show of force?

Shooo... you need to come to the beach, where the park rangers close the beach because some birds are nesting, to your kids flying kites and your dog... and patrol armed. Great vacation in the good ole' USA...

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Sacajawea For This Useful Post:

While I am not the biggest fan of eminent domain, as the video states the owner had the land for 150yrs. That said there is a need to conserve declining species even against the wishes of some. The land in dispute is poor grazing land so the matter is entitlement versus gov't taking.

The feds are armed because the rancher feels the need to stand his ground. Without knowing all the facts of the issue it is impossible to know what compensation the rancher was offered.

I may not get much support for my view, but I feel capitalism shouldnt be the death of biodiversity. Most of the conservation efforts usually result in tax breaks for owner cooperation in conservation efforts. Without knowing the details it is hard to point fingers.

If i had the cash and no family, I would drive there well supplied...
Good thing they have done their job, by getting us to work jobs we hate, to make
credits to feed the ones we love, and keep ****ing the american dream...
...But how soon will each and every one of us will be the one left standing our ground
with no reinforcements in sight? we shall all hang separately, i fear.

Last edited by MikeK; 04-08-2014 at 07:53 PM..
Reason: DO NOT bypass the language filter. Reread the site rules for clarification.

The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Danger Ranger For This Useful Post:

1. It wasn't the S.W.A.T. but 'Federal Agent Snipers' for the B.L.M., heck, I didn't even know that the B.L.M. had their own forces of snipers. This is news to me.

2. It is (and has been for long time) a practice of 'Land-Locking' Federal Land by checker-boarding 'Private Land' around such areas, essentially making the 'fenced-in area' much bigger, and it would be considered trespassing for crossing private land to get to the land-locked Public/BLM land. No easement for access. Its very common practice in Wyoming and many other States, including Nevada. This is crazy where BLM land paid for by Tax Dollars is land-locked by private land, in which the public cannot legally access such land. This is the kind land in which the article is about. This is why the B.L.M. is involved.

3. In past years, there has been offers made to land-owners for a 'Land-Swap' to unlock these said lands. Basically saying, "Hey, we [BLM] will swap out this adjacent land to your property by swapping with your private land (in kind), so access can be gained to BLM Land". This is a deal that many ranchers don't want to partake in. They know they what they are doing. Try hunting on public land in which has been land-locked, frustrating as hell. This is the "re-classification of 600,000 acres of federal land". So to me it sounds like this rancher did the deal with the B.L.M. but instead of 'moving' their fence, they decided to keep it where it previously was and then some from the land they got in the swap...making their land much bigger, for grazing purposes, possibly.

4. Okay, so the guy didn't want to pay for the use of the B.L.M. land. So do you want YOUR taxes to let THEM get a free-ride to land BUT that neither You or I have access too without trespassing?

5. Last I heard it sounds like they are not shooting the cattle, its not their fault, they are rounding them up. But they have let the rancher know, hey, you made the deal, you didn't pay for use of Public Land, which may be Land-Locked, by YOUR property/fence-line?

There is lots more to this story than what is being said in that article. I use to believe the articles from the sources mentioned, but now I look at ALL ARTICLES with some level of suspicion.

And if its all a mistake, why not take it to court instead and discuss this legally? Sounds like the first course of action to me before resorting to Snipers.

While I am not the biggest fan of eminent domain, as the video states the owner had the land for 150yrs. That said there is a need to conserve declining species even against the wishes of some. The land in dispute is poor grazing land so the matter is entitlement versus gov't taking.

The feds are armed because the rancher feels the need to stand his ground. Without knowing all the facts of the issue it is impossible to know what compensation the rancher was offered.

I may not get much support for my view, but I feel capitalism shouldnt be the death of biodiversity. Most of the conservation efforts usually result in tax breaks for owner cooperation in conservation efforts. Without knowing the details it is hard to point fingers.

If the government made large corporations play by the same rules then I might agree with you. However when they pollute our air and water, and make their own rules by sending Billions in contributions to get their way. It is obvious that they couldnt care less about the death of "Biodiversity".

The Following 17 Users Say Thank You to bearfoot_25 For This Useful Post:

If the government made large corporations play by the same rules then I might agree with you. However when they pollute our air and water, and make their own rules by sending Billions in contributions to get their way. It is obvious that they couldnt care less about the death of "Biodiversity".

Unfortunately you are correct in that regards. But it is more the matter of different gov't agencies butting heads. While I was out in WY working last year for the USFS I was privy to the severe conflicts of interest with them and the BLM for use of land types, and they're both forest oriented. I came to this thread because we worked with the range guys and their grazing policy on federal land was very liberal but also enforced.

But more to your point, I too am ashamed that our gov't can be basically bribed into allowing big business pollution and environmental degradation.

So........tell me. How is the cows grazing hurting the tortoise? *This* very well could be my breaking point. SWAT has no business there. Why can't they work it out, face to face without all the show of force?

If the cows aren't eating it, they're probably trampling it. I seriously doubt bringing in gunmen was the first step.

I don't quite get how the public's liberty and freedom is being stood up for by a rancher who is grazing on land he has not been given approval to graze on. There's a big difference between personal use of a public resource, and commercial agricultural use there of. This is not a feudal commons we're talking about.

Ironically, preventing grazing on these arid grasslands in the name of preservation is exactly what is causing them to turn to desert. The ecosystem is dependent on periodic shock-grazing to maintain soil fertility, moisture retention, and cover-clearance for new growth.

The famous Zimbabwean researcher and cattleman Alan Savory has traveled the world for decades teaching his rotational grazing system, and has reclaimed desertified areas and strengthened arid grasslands the world over. Our federal government's complete "hands-off" approach, based entirely on a vision of stewardship that reveres nature to the point of worship, is destroying ecosystems throughout the western half of the country, furthering droughts and turning productive wilds into wastelands unfit even for wildlife habitat.

Ironically, most of these areas were better managed by the Native American tribes who not only inhabited them and gained their entire existence from them, but also maintained a higher carrying capacity for wildlife in the process.

As to the issue of Bundy grazing his cattle for free, the entirety of the lands let by the BLM, plus most of the federal forests and parks and other federal lands, were originally meant to be settled by homesteaders during a period of rapid westward expansion. Those lands not claimed and permanently inhabited were meant to be open to public use until claimed.

Bundy's ancestors enjoyed allemansratten to these lands, in unbroken tradition until present, at the very least. He claims, however, that he has valid claim to the land, and that he and his ancestors have erected improvements on it. If this is true, then his claim is not only valid, barring precedent private claims, but, more importantly, his ownership is unqualified, meaning that his claim is absolute and there is no history of qualification that would subject him to taxes or fees.

If the story were honestly reported by anyone who understands property (as opposed to "real estate"), the story would be reported very differently. It would read that, as more people are coming to understand private property, as opposed to the scam that is fee simple holdership / qualified ownership, the government has decided to crack down on the last few owners of true private property.

I will bet any sum of money at even odds that there is a legal notice in the newspaper of record for the county at the time in which one of his ancestors sought counter-claimants, and none came forward, thus recording his claim. I would imagine that the SB member "jetgraphics" could enlighten us further on the subject.

The Following 29 Users Say Thank You to Harmless Drudge For This Useful Post:

The man seems to feel that because he has used the land for a claimed 150yrs, it is rightfully his and being taken by the government. There is much more to the story, and it has little to do with the public's freedom.

If i had the cash and no family, I would drive there well supplied...
Good thing they have done their job, by getting us to work jobs we hate, to make
credits to feed the ones we love, and keep F-ing the american dream...
...But how soon will each and every one of us will be the one left standing our ground
with no reinforcements in sight? we shall all hang separately, i fear.

I appreciate your passion to help those unjustly treated, but take the time to get some more info. This particular situation may not be as cut and dried as you think.